nach oben

The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment

Erschienen in:

01.04.2014 | LAND USE IN LCA

A spatially explicit data-driven approach to assess the effect of agricultural land occupation on species groups

verfasst von: Pieter M. F. Elshout, Rosalie van Zelm, Ramkumar Karuppiah, Ian J. Laurenzi, Mark A. J. Huijbregts

Erschienen in: The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment | Ausgabe 4/2014

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Purpose

Change of vegetation cover and increased land use intensity, particularly for agricultural use, can affect species richness. Within life cycle impact assessment, methods to assess impacts of land use on a global scale are still in need of development. In this work, we present a spatially explicit data-driven approach to characterize the effect of agricultural land occupation on different species groups.

Methods

We derived characterization factors for the direct impact of agricultural land occupation on relative species richness. Our method identifies potential differences in impacts for cultivation of different crop types, on different species groups, and in different world regions. Using empirical species richness data gathered via an extensive literature search, characterization factors were calculated for four crop groups (oil palm, low crops, Pooideae, and Panicoideae), four species groups (arthropods, birds, mammals, and vascular plants), and six biomes.

Results and discussion

Analysis of the collected data showed that vascular plant richness is more sensitive than the species richness of arthropods to agricultural land occupation. Regarding the differences between world regions, the impact of agricultural land use was lower in boreal forests/taiga than in temperate and tropical regions. The impact of oil palm plantations was found to be larger than that of Pooideae croplands, although we cannot rule out that this difference is influenced by the spatial difference between the oil palm- and Pooideae-growing regions as well. Analysis of a subset of data showed that the impact of conventional farming was larger than the impact of low-input farming.

Conclusions

The impact of land occupation on relative species richness depends on the taxonomic groups considered, the climatic region, and farm management. The influence of crop type, however, was found to be of less importance.

Vorheriger Artikel Life cycle carbon footprint measurement of Portland cement and ready mix concrete for a city with local scarcity of resources like Hong Kong

Nächster Artikel Is land use impact assessment in LCA applicable for forest biomass value chains? Findings from comparison of use of Scandinavian wood, agro-biomass and peat for energy

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Alkemade R, Van Oorschot M, Miles L, Nellemann C, Bakkenes M, Ten Brink B (2009) GLOBIO3: a framework to investigate options for reducing global terrestrial biodiversity loss. Ecosystem 12(3):374–390CrossRef

Andow DA (1991) Vegetational diversity and arthropod population response. Annu Rev Entomol 36:561–586CrossRef

Bare J (2011) Recommendation for land use impact assessment: first steps into framework, theory, and implementation. Clean Techn Environ Policy 13(1):7–18CrossRef

Basedow T (1998) The species composition and frequency of spiders (Araneae) in fields of winter wheat grown under different conditions in Germany. J Appl Entomol 122:585–590CrossRef

Bellamy PE, Croxton PJ, Heard MS, Hinsley SA, Hulmes L, Hulmes S, Nuttall P, Pywell RF, Rothery P (2009) The impact of growing miscanthus for biomass on farmland bird populations. Biomass Bioenergy 33(2):191–199CrossRef

Benton TG, Vickery JA, Wilson JD (2003) Farmland biodiversity: is habitat heterogeneity the key? Trends Ecol Evol 18(4):182–188CrossRef

Booij CJH, Noorlander J (1992) Farming systems and insect predators. Agric Ecosyst Environ 40:125–135CrossRef

Boutin C, Martin PA, Baril A (2009) Arthropod diversity as affected by agricultural management (organic and conventional farming), plant species, and landscape context. Ecoscience 16(4):492–501CrossRef

Brentrup F, Küsters J, Lammel J, Kuhlmann H (2002) Life cycle impact assessment of land use based on the hemeroby concept. Int J Life Cycle Assess 7(6):339–348

Cody ML (1981) Habitat selection in birds: the roles of vegetation structure, competitors, and productivity. Bioscience 31(2):107–113CrossRef

Cook WM, Faeth SH (2006) Irrigation and land use drive ground arthropod community patterns in an urban desert. Environ Entomol 35(6):1532–1540CrossRef

Curran M, De Baan L, De Schryver AM, Van Zelm R, Hellweg S, Köllner T, Sonnemann G, Huijbregts MAJ (2011) Toward meaningful end points of biodiversity in life cycle assessment. Environ Sci Technol 45(1):70–79CrossRef

Danielsen F, Beukema H, Burgess ND, Parish F, Brühl CA, Donald PF, Murdiyarso D, Phalan B, Reijnders L, Struebig M, Fitzherbert EB (2008) Biofuel plantation on forested lands: double jeopardy for biodiversity and climate. Conserv Biol 23(2):348–358CrossRef

De Baan L, Mutel CL, Curran M, Hellweg S, Köllner T (2013a) Land use in life cycle assessment: global characterization factors based on regional and global potential species extinction. Environ Sci Technol 47(16):9281–9290CrossRef

De Baan L, Alkemade R, Köllner T (2013b) Land use impacts on biodiversity in LCA: a global approach. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(6):1216–1230CrossRef

De Schryver AM, Goedkoop MJ, Leuven RSEW, Huijbregts MAJ (2010) Uncertainties in the application of the species area relationship for characterisation factors of land occupation in life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(7):682–691CrossRef

De Snoo GR (1997) Arable flora in sprayed and unsprayed crop edges. Agric Ecosyst Environ 66(3):223–230CrossRef

De Souza DM, Flynn DFB, DeClerck F, Rosenbaum RK, De Melo Lisboa H, Köllner T (2013) Land use impacts on biodiversity in LCA: proposal of characterization factors based on functional diversity. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(6):1231–1242CrossRef

Estrada A, Coates-Estrada R (2005) Diversity of Neotropical migratory landbird species assemblages in forest fragments and man-made vegetation in Los Tuxtlas, Mexico. Biodivers Conserv 14(7):1719–1734CrossRef

Flohre A, Fischer C, Aavik T, Bengtsson J, Berendse F, Bommarco R, Ceryngier P, Clement LW, Dennis C, Eggers S, Emmerson M, Geiger F, Guerrero I, Hawro V, Inchausti P, Liira J, Morales MB, Oñate JJ, Pärt T, Weisser WW, Winqvist C, Thies C, Tscharntke T (2011) Agricultural intensification and biodiversity partitioning in European landscapes comparing plants, carabids, and birds. Ecol Appl 21(5):1772–1781CrossRef

Foley JA, DeFriest R, Asner GP, Barford C, Bonan G, Carpenter SR, Chapin FS, Coe MT, Daily GC, Gibbs HK, Helkowski JH, Holloway T, Howard EA, Kucharik CJ, Monfreda C, Patz JA, Prentice IC, Ramankutty N, Snyder PK (2005) Global consequences of land use. Science 309:570–574CrossRef

Gaines HR, Gratton C (2010) Seed predation increases with ground beetle diversity in a Wisconsin (USA) potato agroecosystem. Agric Ecosyst Environ 137:329–336CrossRef

Gardiner MA, Tuell JK, Isaacs R, Gibbs J, Ascher JS, Landis DA (2010) Implications of three biofuel crops for beneficial arthropods in agricultural landscapes. BioEnergy 3(1):6–19CrossRef

Gardner TA, Barlow J, Chazdon R, Ewers RM, Harvey CA, Peres CA, Sodhi NS (2009) Prospects for tropical biodiversity in a human-modified world. Ecol Lett 12(6):561–582CrossRef

Geyer R, Lindner JP, Stoms DM, Davis FW, Wittstock B (2010) Coupling GIS and LCA for biodiversity assessments of land use. Part 2: impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(7):692–703CrossRef

Gotelli NJ, Colwell RK (2001) Quantifying biodiversity: procedures and pitfalls in the measurement and comparison of species richness. Ecol Lett 4(4):379–391CrossRef

Hanafiah MM, Hendriks AJ, Huijbregts MAJ (2012) Comparing the ecological footprint with the biodiversity footprint of products. J Clean Prod 37:107–114CrossRef

Hole DG, Perkins AJ, Wilson JD, Alexander IH, Grice PV, Evans AD (2005) Does organic farming benefit biodiversity? Biol Conserv 122(1):113–130CrossRef

Holland JM (2004) The environmental consequences of adopting conservation tillage in Europe: reviewing the evidence. Agric Ecosyst Environ 103(1):1–25CrossRef

Kessler M, Abrahamczyk S, Bos M, Buchori D, Dwi Putra D, Gradstein SR, Hõhn P, Kluge J, Orend F, Pitopang R, Saleh S, Schulze CH, Sporn SG, Steffan-Dewenter I, Tjitrosoedirdjo SS, Tscharntke T (2009) Alpha and beta diversity of plants and animals along a tropical land-use gradient. Ecol Appl 19(8):2142–2156CrossRef

Khoury F, Al-Shamlih M (2006) The impact of intensive agriculture on the bird community of a sand dune desert. J Arid Environ 64(3):448–459CrossRef

Kløverpris J, Wenzel H, Nielsen PH (2007) Life cycle inventory modelling of land use induced by crop consumption. Part 1: conceptual analysis and methodological proposal. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(1):13–21

Köllner T (2000) Species-pool effect potentials (SPEP) as a yardstick to evaluate land-use impacts on biodiversity. J Clean Prod 8(4):293–311CrossRef

Köllner T, Scholz RW (2007) Assessment of land use impacts on the natural environment. Part 1: an analytical framework for pure land occupation and land use change. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12(1):16–23

Köllner T, Scholz RW (2008) Assessment of land use impacts on the natural environment. Part 2: generic characterization factors for local species diversity in central Europe. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(1):32–48

Kromp B (1999) Carabid beetles in sustainable agriculture: a review on pest control efficacy, cultivation impacts and enhancement. Agric Ecosyst Environ 74:187–228CrossRef

Kruskal WH, Wallis WA (1952) Use of ranks in one-criterion variance analysis. J Am Stat Assoc 47(260):583–621CrossRef

Lang A, Filser J, Henschel JR (1999) Predation by ground beetles and wolf spiders on herbivorous insects in a maize crop. Agric Ecosyst Environ 72(2):189–199CrossRef

Larsen FW, Bladt J, Balmford A, Rahbek C (2012) Birds as biodiversity surrogates: will supplementing birds with other taxa improve effectiveness? J Appl Ecol 49(2):349–356CrossRef

Lindeijer E (2000a) Review of land use impact methodologies. J Clean Prod 8(4):273–281CrossRef

Lindeijer E (2000b) Biodiversity and life support impacts of land use in LCA. J Clean Prod 8(4):313–319CrossRef

Lindeijer E, Müller-Wenk R, Steen B (2002) Impact assessment of resources and land use. In: Udo de Haes HA, Finnveden G, Goedkoop M et al. (eds) Life cycle impact assessment: striving towards best practice. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC), Pensacola, pp 11–64

Mann HB, Whitney DR (1947) On a test of whether one of two random variables is stochastically larger than the other. Ann Math Stat 18(1):50–60CrossRef

Matson PA, Parton WJ, Power AG, Swift MJ (1997) Agricultural intensification and ecosystem properties. Science 277:504–509CrossRef

McGeoch MA (1998) The selection, testing and application of terrestrial insects as bioindicators. Biol Rev 73(2):181–201CrossRef

McLaughlin A, Mineau P (1995) The impact of agricultural practices on biodiversity. Agric Ecosyst Environ 55(3):201–212CrossRef

Meek B, Loxton D, Sparks T, Pywell R, Pickett H, Nowakowski M (2002) The effect of arable field margin composition on invertebrate biodiversity. Biol Conserv 106(2):259–271CrossRef

Michelsen O (2008) Assessment of land use impact on biodiversity. Proposal of a new methodology exemplified with forestry operations in Norway. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(1):22–31

Milà i Canals L, Bauer C, Depestele J, Dubreuil A, Freiermuth Knuchel R, Gaillard G, Michelsen O, Müller-Wenk R, Rydgren B (2007) Key elements in a framework for land use impact assessment within LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12(1):5–15CrossRef

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: biodiversity synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC

Müller C, De Baan L, Köllner T (2013) Comparing direct land use impacts on biodiversity of conventional and organic milk—based on a Swedish case study. Int J Life Cycle Assess. doi:10.1007/s11367-013-0638-5

Müller-Wenk R, Brandão M (2010) Climatic impact of land use in LCA—carbon transfers between vegetation/soil and air. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(2):172–182CrossRef

Mulugeta D, Stoltenberg DE, Boerboom CM (2001) Weed species–area relationships as influenced by tillage. Weed Sci 49(2):217–223CrossRef

Nepstad DC, Veríssimo A, Alencar A, Nobre C, Lima E, Lefebvre P, Schlesinger P, Potter C, Moutinho P, Mendoza E, Cochrane M, Brooks V (1999) Large-scale impoverishment of Amazonian forests by logging and fire. Nature 398:505–508CrossRef

Olsen DM, Dinerstein E, Wikramanayake ED, Burgess ND, Powell GVN, Underwood EC, D’amico JA, Itoua I, Strand HE, Morrison JC, Loucks CJ, Allnutt TF, Ricketts TH, Kura Y, Lamoreux JF, Wettengel WW, Hedao P, Kassem KR (2001) Terrestrial ecoregions of the world: a new map of life on earth. Bioscience 51(11):933–938CrossRef

Ottonetti L, Tucci L, Frizzi F, Chelazzi G, Santini G (2010) Changes in ground-foraging ant assemblages along a disturbance gradient in a tropical agricultural landscape. Ethol Ecol Evol 22(1):73–86CrossRef

Ouchtati N, Doumandji S, Brandmayr P (2012) Comparison of ground beetle (Coleoptera: Carabidae) assemblages in cultivated and natural steppe biotopes of the semi-arid region of Algeria. Afr Entomol 20(1):134–143CrossRef

Prendergast JR (2006) Species richness covariance in higher taxa: empirical tests of the biodiversity indicator concept. Ecography 20(2):210–216CrossRef

Riechert SE, Bishop L (1990) Prey control by an assemblage of generalist predators: spiders in garden test systems. Ecology 71(4):1441–1450CrossRef

Rodrigues ASL, Brooks TM (2007) Shortcuts for biodiversity conservation planning: the effectiveness of surrogates. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 38:713–737CrossRef

Schmidt JH (2008) Development of LCIA characterisation factors for land use impacts on biodiversity. J Clean Prod 16(18):1929–1942CrossRef

Schmidt MH, Roschewitz I, Thies C, Tscharntke T (2005) Differential effects of landscape and management on diversity and density of ground-dwelling farmland spiders. J Appl Ecol 42(2):281–287CrossRef

Schulze CH, Waltert M, Kessler PJA, Pitopang R, Shahabudding, Veddeler D, Mühlenberg M, Gradstein SR, Leuschner C, Steffan-Dewenter I, Tscharntke T (2004) Biodiversity indicator groups of tropical land-use systems: comparing plants, birds, and insects. Ecol Appl 14(5):1321–1333CrossRef

Sodhi NS, Koh LP, Brook BW, Ng PKL (2004) Southeast Asian biodiversity: an impending disaster. Trends Ecol Evol 19(12):654–660CrossRef

Sørensen T (1948) A method of establishing groups of equal amplitude in plant sociology based on similarity of species content. K Dan Vidensk Selsk Biol Skr 5:1–34

Ulber L, Steinmann H-H, Klimek S, Isselstein J (2009) An on-farm approach to investigate the impact of diversified crop rotations on weed species richness and composition in winter wheat. Weed Res 49(5):534–543CrossRef

Vandewalle M, de Bello F, Berg MP, Bolger T, Dolédec S, Dubs F, Feld CK, Harrington R, Harrison PA, Lavorel S, Martins da Silva P, Moretti M, Niemelä J, Santos P, Sattler T, Sousa JP, Sykes MT, Vanbergen AJ, Woodcock BA (2010) Functional traits as indicators of biodiversity response to land use changes across ecosystems and organisms. Biodivers Conserv 19(10):2921–2947CrossRef

Vitousek PM, Mooney HA, Lubchenco J, Melillo JM (1997) Human domination of Earth’s ecosystems. Science 277:494–499CrossRef

Vogtländer JG, Lindeijer E, Witte JPM, Hendriks C (2004) Characterizing the change of land-use based on flora: application for EIA and LCA. J Clean Prod 12(1):47–57CrossRef

Ward KE, Ward RN (2001) Diversity and abundance of carabid beetles in short-rotation plantings of sweetgum, maize and switchgrass in Alabama. Agrofor Syst 53(3):261–267CrossRef

Weidema BP, Lindeijer E (2001) Physical impacts of land use in product life cycle assessment. Final report of the EURENVIRON-LCAGAPS sub-project on land use. Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby

Wilcoxon F (1945) Individual comparisons by ranking methods. Biom Bull 1(6):80–83CrossRef

Wilson JD, Whittingham MJ, Bradbury RB (2005) The management of crop structure: a general approach to reversing the impacts of agricultural intensification on birds? Ibis 147(3):453–463CrossRef

Wright SJ, Muller-Landau HC (2006) The future of tropical forest species. Biotropica 38(3):287–301CrossRef

Titel: A spatially explicit data-driven approach to assess the effect of agricultural land occupation on species groups
verfasst von: Pieter M. F. Elshout
Rosalie van Zelm
Ramkumar Karuppiah
Ian J. Laurenzi
Mark A. J. Huijbregts
Publikationsdatum: 01.04.2014
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment / Ausgabe 4/2014
Print ISSN: 0948-3349
Elektronische ISSN: 1614-7502
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-014-0701-x

Springer Professional

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results and discussion

Conclusions

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2014

Life cycle assessment of manufactured nanomaterials: inventory modelling rules and application example

Surplus cost as a life cycle impact indicator for fossil resource scarcity

Call for applications: graduate student researcher (PhD student) and postdoctoral associates on LCA research

Reusable vs. disposable cups revisited: guidance in life cycle comparisons addressing scenario, model, and parameter uncertainties for the US consumer

Life cycle assessment of construction materials: the influence of assumptions in end-of-life modelling

Life cycle thinking in small and medium enterprises: the results of research on the implementation of life cycle tools in Polish SMEs—part 2: LCA related aspects